statistics@sesric.org 1

Seventh Session of OIC-StatCom

2 – 3 May 2018, Ankara-Turkey

Session on “Implemented Activities of the OIC-StatCom”

Progress Report on “Peer Reviews for National Statistical Offices

(NSOs) in the OIC Member Countries (OIC-Peer)”

1. Background

The Fifth Session of OIC-StatCom, held on 12-14 May 2015 in Ankara-Turkey, expressed the

importance of Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Systems to better plan and to coordinate the

future strategies of National Statistical Offices (NSOs). The OIC-StatCom requested the OIC-

StatCom secretariat to initiate a project entitled “Peer Review for National Statistical Offices

in the OIC Member Countries (OIC-Peer).” This project aims to facilitate south-south

learning in statistical development through a peer review mechanism to enhance the

credibility of the National Statistical Systems (NSS), to strengthen the system’s capacity to

produce high-quality statistics and to reassure stakeholders about the quality of statistics

produced by the NSOs and the trustworthiness of the system. Sound high-quality data and

statistical analysis play important role for policy-making at national and international level.

2. Some Examples of Statistical System Peer Reviews

There are some samples of Statistical System Peer Reviews in the world, namely:

a. Peer Reviews (PR) by Eurostat

The Peer Review is based on the structure and procedures of the ESS (European Statistical

System) peer reviews and is designed for candidate countries and countries with a

developed statistical system. The objectives of these reviews are, in particular, to assess

compliance of the reviewed National Statistical Institute (NSI) with principles 1-6 and 15

of the European Statistics Code of Practices, to evaluate the coordination role of the NSI

within the statistical system, to highlight transferable practices suitable to foster

compliance with the Code of Practice and to recommend improvement actions needed in

view of fully complying with the Code.

b. Global Assessments (GA) by Eurostat together with UNECE and EFTA

The Global Assessments are based on traditional global reviews of statistical systems

suitable for countries aiming at aligning their statistical production with

European/international standards. The objectives of GAs are to assess the administrative

and technical capacity of the reviewed statistical systems, to assess the statistical law and

other legal acts and its respect of the European and international recommendations and

principles, to assess the mechanisms used by the National Statistical Institute to

coordinate the statistical system, to review the medium and long-term planning

statistics@sesric.org 2

mechanisms in place, to propose a list of actions to be undertaken in order to improve and

strengthen the statistical system, and to assess the statistical production against the

European/international standards in statistics.

c. Peer Reviews of African National Statistical Systems implemented by PARIS21

The African peer review of NSSs was launched by the Economic Commission for Africa's

Committee on Development Information (CODI) meeting in 2003. CODI recommended

that African countries, supported by PARIS21, carry out peer reviews to ensure that good

practice passes from country to country, based on the firsthand experience of peers, to

help accelerate the change processes in reforming statistical systems. The focus of this

peer reviews is on governance of the National Statistical System (NSS), its organisation,

strategic planning, service to users, funding, and sustainability. Peer review teams

typically include both senior statisticians (normally the head or deputy head of the NSS)

and senior policy makers from two other countries.

3. OIC Member Countries Experienced in Peer Review Mechanisms

There are 18 OIC countries which have been reviewed in coordination with international

organisations such as Eurostat, PARIS21, UNECE, and EFTA. Additionally, 14 OIC

countries have involved in M&E mechanisms through being in the review team. Hence, in

total 24 OIC countries have experiences in peer review processes either as the reviewed

country or as the reviewer.

Table 1. OIC Member Countries Experienced in Peer Review Mechanisms

No Country Year of

Review

Peer Review

Coordination Reviewed By Type of Review

1 Albania 2015, 2013,

2010 Eurostat

Limited Peer Review,

Light Peer Review,

Adapted Global

Assessment

2 Azerbaijan 2010,

2016/2017

Eurostat, EFTA,

UNECE

Adapted Global

Assessment, Global

Assessment

3 Benin 2010 PARIS21 Burundi and

Guinea

Peer Reviews of

African National

Statistical Systems

4 Burkina Faso 2009 PARIS21 Cameroon and

Niger

Peer Reviews of

African National

Statistical Systems

5 Cambodia 2016 PARIS21

Indonesia,

Philippines and

ASEAN

Secretariat

Peer Reviews of

African National

Statistical Systems

statistics@sesric.org 3

No Country Year of

Review

Peer Review

Coordination Reviewed By Type of Review

6 Congo 2010 PARIS21

Benin and

Democratic

Republic of the

Congo

Peer Reviews of

African National

Statistical Systems

7 Cameroon 2015 PARIS21 Chad and

Senegal

Peer Reviews of

African National

Statistical Systems

8 Cote d'Ivoire 2017 PARIS21 Cameroon and

Senegal

Peer Reviews of

African National

Statistical Systems

9 Egypt 2014 Eurostat

Sector Review of the

Implementation of the

Labour Force Survey

10 Jordan 2014, 2017 Eurostat

Sector Review of the

Implementation of the

Labour Force Survey,

Peer Review

11 Kazakhstan 2008, 2017

Eurostat,

UNECE,

UNESCAP

Adapted Global

Assessment, Second

Global Assessment

12 Kyrgyzstan 2011 Eurostat, EFTA,

UNECE

Adapted Global

Assessment

13 Malawi 2009 PARIS21 Mozambique

and Tanzania

Peer Reviews of

African National

Statistical Systems

14 Mauritania 2014 PARIS21 Djibouti and

Mali

Peer Reviews of

African National

Statistical Systems

15 Mozambique 2009 PARIS21 Malawi and

Tanzania

Peer Reviews of

African National

Statistical Systems

16 Myanmar 2016 PARIS21

Malaysia,

Philippines and

ASEAN

Secretariat

Peer Reviews of

African National

Statistical Systems

17 Niger 2009 PARIS21 Burkina Faso

and Mauritania

Peer Reviews of

African National

Statistical Systems

statistics@sesric.org 4

No Country Year of

Review

Peer Review

Coordination Reviewed By Type of Review

18 Palestine 2012 Eurostat

Light Peer Review

19 Senegal 2011 PARIS21 Cote d'Ivoire

and Guinea

Peer Reviews of

African National

Statistical Systems

20 Tajikistan 2013 Eurostat, EFTA,

UNECE

Adapted Global

Assessment

21 Tunisia 2014, 2015 Eurostat

Adapted Global

Assessment, Sector

Review of the

Implementation of the

Labour Force Survey

22 Turkey 2015, 2011,

2002 Eurostat

Peer Review, Light Peer

Review, Global

Assessment

4. Activities Conducted within the Project Framework

a. Activity 1 – Organisation of Expert Group and Roundtable Meetings (EGM and

RM). The meetings were held on 3-4 November 2016 attended by EuroStat and the

delegates from 14 National Statistical Offices (NSOs) of OIC member countries, namely

Azerbaijan, Albania, Benin, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Niger, Pakistan,

Palestine, Qatar, Tajikistan, Turkey, and Uganda. PARIS21 also attended the meeting

virtually. The meeting had the objectives to introduce the Peer Reviews mechanisms in

the world including the methodology of different methods, to receive recommendations

and inputs on the OIC-Peer project, and to discuss the way forward.

b. Activity 2 – OIC-Peer Review Inclination Survey (OPRIS) Design and Circulation:

Questionnaire on the current situation about the implementation of Peer Reviews in the

OIC Member Countries. The questionnaires were designed and circulated in three official

languages of the OIC on 10 January 2017.

c. Activity 3 – Collection and Collation of OPRIS: to collect and collate the questionnaire

responses. As of 1 August 2017, 31 responses were received (23 of them were completed

while 8 of them still have missing information in the OPRIS part).

d. Activity 4 – Organisation of Virtual Meetings. The meetings had been conducted since

2016 with the participation of Eurostat, PARIS21 and TurkStat. Last virtual meeting was

held on 18 October 2017 with the aim to finalise the draft concept note and agenda for the

OIC-Peer Workshop to be held on 19-20 December 2017.

e. Activity 5 – Organisation of Workshop: to provide information on the peer review

mechanism and methodology including preparatory materials that need to be prepared by

the countries before conducting peer review. This workshop also give a chance to the

statistics@sesric.org 5

countries to voluntary engage in the Peer Review process. Conducted on 19-20 December

2017 in Ankara, Republic of Turkey.

f. Activity 6 – Updating the Roster of Statistics Experts (ROSE). In order to gather a

pool of highly competent experts that will be candidates for the teams of OIC-Peer

Programme, the Centre added additional question in the ROSE registration form

(http://www.sesric.org/rose-form.php) related to whether the experts has experience in the

Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) mechanisms for NSS.

g. Activity 7 – Gathering Experts for OIC-Peer Programme. The Centre circulated a

Note Verbale together with the ROSE contact information form on 27 March 2018 to the

NSOs of OIC countries to send their qualified candidates’ contact details.

5. Workshops Conducted within the Project Framework

5.1.1. Expert Group and Roundtable Meetings on ‘Peer Reviews for National Statistical

Offices in the OIC Member Countries (OIC-Peer)’

The Expert Group Meeting (EGM) on ‘Peer Reviews for National Statistical Offices in the

OIC Member Countries (OIC-Peer)' was organised by SESRIC on 3 November 2016 in

Konya, Republic of Turkey. The Meeting has the objectives to introduce the Peer Reviews

mechanisms in the world including the methodology of different methods, to receive

recommendations and inputs on the OIC-Peer project, and to discuss the way forward. The

EGM was attended by EuroStat and the delegates from 14 National Statistical Offices (NSOs)

of OIC member countries, namely Azerbaijan, Albania, Benin, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan,

Kazakhstan, Niger, Pakistan, Palestine, Qatar, Tajikistan, Turkey, and Uganda. Paris21 also

attended the meeting virtually.

During the EGM, the participants were briefed about the Peer Reviews for NSOs in the OIC

Member Countries (OIC-Peer) Project and Peer Review Mechanisms in the World. Countries’

experiences in conducting Peer Review were also presented during the meeting.

Based on the discussions and deliberations made during the EGM, a Technical Team

composing volunteering countries will be formed to share their experience with SESRIC

including to ameliorate the content and structure of draft OIC-Peer Review Inclination Survey

(OPRIS) and to suggest the most appropriate underlying criteria/benchmark based on which

the compliance of the OIC Member Countries will be assessed.

On 4 November 2016, the Roundtable Meeting (RM) was held as a half-day back to back

meeting following the end of the EGM. The RM was attended by Eurostat, Paris21 (virtually)

and Turkish Statistical Institute. In this meeting, the way forward and the timeline of the

Project were discussed in detail.

statistics@sesric.org 6

5.1.2. Workshop on ‘Peer Review Mechanisms for National Statistical Offices in OIC

Member Countries’

SESRIC in collaboration with the Statistical Office of the European Union (Eurostat) and the

Partnership in Statistics for Development in the 21st Century (PARIS21) organised the

Workshop on ‘Peer Review Mechanisms for National Statistical Offices in OIC Member

Countries’ on 19-20 December 2017 at SESRIC Headquarters in Ankara, Republic of Turkey.

38 participants from National Statistical Offices (NSOs) of 25 OIC countries including

Afghanistan, Albania, Bangladesh, Cameroon, Chad, Cote d’Ivoire, Egypt, Gabon, Gambia,

Iran, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Malaysia, Morocco, Mozambique, Niger,

Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda and Uzbekistan and 4 international

organisations, namely Eurostat, PARIS21, African Union Commission (AUC) and SESRIC,

attended the workshop.

During the Workshop, the OIC-Peer Project including survey results of OIC-Peer Review

Inclination Survey (OPRIS), Peer Review Mechanisms Conducted by International

Organisations, and Country Experiences in Conducting the Peer Review Process and the way

forward were discussed. The mechanisms of peer reviews including preparatory phases,

selection of expert team, country visits, validation of results/reports and follow-up were also

discussed during the brainstorming session on ‘OIC-Peer: Conduct and the Way Forward’.

6. The Result of OIC-Peer Review Inclination Survey (OPRIS)

In order to learn the current situation on the implementation of peer reviews in the NSOs of

OIC member counties, the Centre prepared the OIC-Peer Review Inclination Survey (OPRIS)

together with the partners including Eurostat, PARIS21, and Turkish Statistical Institute

(TurkStat) and circulated the OPRIS to the NSOs of OIC member countries on 10 January

2017.

The questionnaire consists of two parts: In ‘Introduction’ part, the respondents are asked to

provide general information regarding their institution and focal point responsible for

responding to the questionnaire. In ‘OPRIS’ part, the survey includes 10 questions with a total

of 12 sub-questions to learn the current situation on the implementation of Peer Reviews for

National Statistical Offices (NSOs) of OIC Member Countries. As of December 2017, 33 OIC

member countries have responded to the survey (Table 2) where 25 member countries fully

completed the questionnaire and 8 member countries provided partial answers; whereas, 23

OIC member countries have not yet submitted their completed questionnaires.

statistics@sesric.org 7

Table 2. Respondents by Region

EAST ASIA and

PASIFIC (4)

EUROPE and

CENTRAL ASIA

(4)

MIDDLE EAST

and NORTH

AFRICA (13)

SOUTH ASIA

(2)

SUB-SAHARAN

AFRICA (10)

Bangladesh Albania Bahrain Afghanistan Benin

Brunei Tajikistan Egypt Pakistan Cameroon

Indonesia Tunisia Iran Chad

Malaysia Turkey Iraq Cote d’Ivoire

Jordan Gabon

Kuwait Mozambique

Libya Niger

Oman Nigeria

Palestine Togo

Saudi Arabia Uganda

Sudan

UAE

Yemen

Based on the responses, it is found that there are 24 countries (74% of the total respondent

countries) aware of any peer review approach for NSOs conducted by international

organisations while the other 9 countries are not. As shown in Figure 1, peer review

facilitated by PARIS21 is mostly known by the respondent countries while two countries (i.e.,

Egypt and Saudi Arabia) stating that they are also aware of other assessment approaches

namely the peer review for Economic Statistics (National Accounts) facilitated by the African

Development Bank (AfDB)1 and peer review by United Nations.

Figure 1. Type of Peer Reviews Known by the Respondent Countries

1 The African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) of the AfDB is a mutually agreed instrument and voluntarily

acceded by the African Union member states as a self-monitoring mechanism. As at June 2016, 35 African

Union Member States1 (note: 20 of them are OIC member countries) had joined APRM and by joining the

APRM, the Member States agree to voluntarily and independently review their compliance with African and

international governance commitments. See https://au.int/en/organs/aprm for the list of 35 AU Member States

joining the APRM.

Peer Review by

PARIS21, 16, 43%

European Based

Peer Reviews, 14,

38%

(Adapted) Global

Assessments, 5, 14%

Other Assessment

Approaches, 2, 5%

statistics@sesric.org 8

In the survey, we also questioned whether the countries have been involved in any type of

peer review processes. Fourteen respondent countries have been involved in peer reviews,

namely 7 countries2 for peer reviews by Eurostat, 6 countries3 by PARIS21 and one country4

has been involved in other assessment which cannot be identified as the answer from the

respondent country was not clear concerning the type of peer review. Besides, Egypt also

stated in the survey that they were involved in the African Development Bank peer review

programme as well5. Two countries are in progress of conducting the peer reviews, namely

Oman and Saudi Arabia, while the other 12 respondent countries6 stated that they have no

experience in conducting any type of peer reviews (See Figure 2).

Figure 2. Countries Involvement in Any Type of Peer Review Processes

Of 14 countries stated that they have been involved in peer review process, 9 countries7 were

being reviewed and 3 countries8 were being in the reviewer teams while 2 countries9 have

been involved in both, reviewer and reviewee (See Figure 3).

Figure 3. Countries’ Experiences in Peer Review Processes

2 Involved in peer reviews by Eurostat (7): Albania, Egypt, Jordan, Niger, Palestine, Tunisia and Turkey 3 Involved in peer reviews by PARIS21 (6): Benin, Cameroon, Cote d’Ivoire, Malaysia, Mozambique and Niger 4 Iraq did not specify the type of peer review that they have been involved in. 5 The review was conducted for Economic Statistics under National Account department of CAPMAS of Egypt. 6 No experience in conducting peer reviews (12): Afghanistan, Bahrain, Brunei, Chad, Gabon, Iran, Libya,

Nigeria, Togo, UAE, Uganda and Yemen. 7 Reviewee (9): Albania, Benin, Cote d’Ivoire, Egypt, Niger, Oman, Palestine, Tunisia and Turkey. 8 Reviewer (3): Iraq, Jordan and Malaysia. 9 Both (2): Cameroon and Mozambique.

Involved in any type

of peer reviews, 14,

50%Have not been

involved, 12, 43%

In progress, 2, 7%

2

3

9

Both

Reviewer

Reviewee

statistics@sesric.org 9

These information are in line with our pre-research while for Benin and Cote d’Ivoire, we

found that they were also involved as reviewers in reviewing Congo and Senegal (please see

Table 1). The other two countries who are currently in progress conducting the peer review

are Oman and Saudi Arabia in which Oman indicated that they are currently in the process of

renewing Oman’s Statistical Law and Quality Assurance Framework and Code of Practice of

Official Statistical System while Saudi Arabia is in the process of conducting peer review by

PARIS21 which was started since 2016 and is expected to finalise the review process in 2018.

When it comes to the question concerning the advantage of peer review to the institutions, 12

countries10 indicated that it is very beneficial while the other 4 countries11 indicated the

advantage of conducting the peer review as somewhat beneficial. Table 3 shows countries’

reasons concerning the advantage of peer review to their institutions.

Table 3. Countries’ Reasons Concerning the Advantage of Peer Review

No Countries Reason

1 Albania The PR assessment is used as a strategic document for future for

development of statistical legal framework, enhancing the professional

independence, quality of official statistics and the image of the institution.

2 Benin Sharing experiences allows us to improve by finding innovative solutions to

the problems we face that are resolved by our peers in their context.

However, the approach is limited as to its ability to influence leaders.

3 Cameroon At the end of the peer review, very important recommendations were made,

the implementation of which could significantly improve the National

Statistical System.

4 Cote d’Ivoire Enriching exchanges between the actors of the National Statistical System

(NSS); Identification of the strengths and weaknesses of the NSS; Proposal

of recommendations; Establishment of a mechanism for monitoring

recommendations; etc.

5 Egypt The best experiences were co - shared between the reviewer and the

reviewee.

6 Niger Built on the same time horizon as the National Development Plan (2017-

2021), it participates in the implementation of some of its strategic

outcomes, including management of the economy and monitoring and

evaluation in general.

7 Saudi Arabia Helped in facilitating the transformation of the General Authority for

Statistics (GASTAT).

8 Mozambique We could get ideas how our system is going on and also we could improve

what needed more attention and action to be done.

It is in fact that peer review is not only giving advantages to the institutions, but also some

countries were facing some challenges during the conduct of peer review. There are 9

countries (56% of the 14 countries who were involved in peer reviews and who are in the

process of conducting the peer review) stated that they faced some challenges during the peer

10 Very beneficial (12): Albania, Cameroon, Cote d’Ivoire, Egypt, Malaysia, Niger, Oman, Palestine, Saudi

Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia and Turkey. 11 Somewhat beneficial (4): Benin, Iraq, Jordan and Mozambique.

statistics@sesric.org 10

review process while the other 8 countries are not. The following Figure 4 illustrates the level

of significance for each challenges faced during the conduct of peer review.

Figure 4. Challenges Faced by the Respondent Countries during Peer Review Process

It could be seen from the chart that the availability of documentation with respect to statistical

processes, participation status of users (such as media representatives, NGOs, etc) attended to

the peer review meetings and participation status of producers (such as other national

authorities) attended to the peer review meetings are the very significant challenges affected

the conduct of peer review. Besides, time constraints for the completion of the peer review

procedures, complexity of questions asked in the peer review process, number of human

resources required to complete peer review request and methodological knowledge of human

resources need in terms of peer review process are considered as the significant challenges

affected the conduct of peer review process. On the other hand, financial resources is

considered as not significant at all to facilitate the meetings, movement and the conduct of

peer review itself. This is supported the methodology of peer review by PARIS21 and

Eurostat in which they did cost sharing between the host country and the international

organisation supporting the peer review process. For instance, PARIS21 has funded

international travel and per diem expenses, as well as providing the facilitators; while the host

countries have provided internal travel and office facilities (Samuel et al, 2010). Samuel et al

(2010) argued that ‘peer reviews are not necessarily directly linked to NSDS process but,

country costs can be included in National Strategy for the Development of Statistics (NSDS)

funding’.

As the NSDS is a framework for the coordination of all statistical activities within a country

and also for all international and bilateral assistance for statistics to a country (PARIS21,

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Very Significant Significant Netiher Significant Insignificant Not Significant At All

statistics@sesric.org 11

2007), a question concerning the availability of NSDS or Strategic Plan in the institution was

raised in the survey. Figure 5 shows that from 33 respondent countries, 21 countries12

indicated that they have NSDS/Strategic Plans, 9 countries13 are having their NSDS under the

development while 2 countries14 indicated that they do not have NSDS/Strategic Plan at the

moment. Kuwait did not respond to this question thus further inquiry will be asked to the

Central Statistical Bureau (CBS) of Kuwait in order to have complete answer from all

respondent countries.

Figure 5. Availability of NSDS or Strategic Plan in NSOs of Respondent Countries

The implementation period of the countries’ NSDS/Strategic Plan are varied as shown in

Table 4 below.

Table 4. Implementation Period of Country’s NSDS/Strategic Plan

No. Countries15 NSDS/Strategic Plan Implementation Period

1 Afghanistan 2016-2020

2 Albania 2012-2016. Next NSDS: 2017-2021

3 Bahrain 2014-2018. Next NSDS: 2018-2020

4 Bangladesh 2013-2023

5 Benin 2017-2022 (in progress)

6 Brunei 2014-2023

7 Cameroon 2015-2020

8 Chad 2011-2015

9 Egypt 2018/2019-2023 (in progress)

10 Gabon 2016-2020

11 Indonesia 2015-2019

12 NSDS available (21): Afghanistan, Albania, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brunei, Cameroon, Chad, Gabon,

Indonesia, Iraq, Malaysia, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tajikistan,

Turkey and Uganda. 13 NSDS is under development (9): Benin, Egypt, Iran, Jordan, Libya, Tunisia, Togo, UAE and Yemen. 14 No Current NSDS available (2): Cote d’Ivoire and Pakistan. 15 30 countries are represented the countries indicated that either they have NSDS or their NSDS are still in the

process of development.

Available, 21, 64%

In Progress, 9, 27%

Not Available, 2, 6%No Answer, 1, 3%

statistics@sesric.org 12

No. Countries NSDS/Strategic Plan Implementation Period

12 Iran 2017-not indicated (in progress)

13 Iraq 2013-2017

14 Jordan 2017-2021 (in progress)

15 Libya 2018-2022 (in progress)

16 Malaysia 2015-2020

17 Mozambique 2013-2017 (possible to extend until 2019)

18 Niger 2017-2021

19 Nigeria 2017-2020

20 Oman 2016-2020

21 Palestine 2014-2018. Next NSDS: 2018-2022

22 Saudi Arabia 2016-2020

23 Sudan 2012-2016

24 Tajikistan 2012-2016. Next NSDS: 2016-2018

25 Tunisia 2017-2020 (in progress)

26 Turkey 2017-2021

27 Togo 2018-2022 (in progress)

28 UAE 2018-2022

29 Uganda 2013/14-2017/18. Next NSDS: 2013/14-2019/20

30 Yemen 2018-2020

Next question was about whether the country’s current/planned NSDS/Strategic Plan is

compliant with the National Development Plan. This question was actually aiming as an

exercise to the country as this question is part of the Self-Assessment questionnaire. Of 28

countries responded to the question, 9 countries16 indicated that they are fully compliant, 16

countries17 highly compliant and 3 countries18 answered neutral. Bangladesh argued that they

are at the preliminary stage and thus they considered their NSDS/Strategic Plan as neutral to

the National Development Plan while Oman argued that ‘five year development plan does not

reflect the work of National Center for Statistics and Information (NCSI) of Oman explicitly.

But it provides orientation for each required area of statistics’. On the other hand, Yemen

argued that they have no experience which could help them to hold the NSDS as fully

compliant thus they positioned their NSDS as neutral.

The focus on the peer review is on the governance of the NSS, its organization, strategic

planning, service to users, funding, sustainability, etc. All of these were set against the

backdrop of the fundamental principles of official statistics. To learn which fundamental

principles are followed by the NSOs of OIC member countries, we set a question concerning

this issue in the survey. Figure 6 shows the fundamental principles followed by the

respondent countries.

16 Fully compliant (9): Cameroon, Chad, Gabon, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, Togo, Turkey and UAE. 17 Highly compliant (16): Afghanistan, Albania, Bahrain, Benin, Brunei, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq,

Jordan, Malaysia, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan, Tunisia and Uganda. 18 Neutral (3): Bangladesh, Oman and Yemen.

statistics@sesric.org 13

Figure 6. Fundamental Principles Followed by the Respondent Countries

From the graph above, it could be seen that 31 countries19 (91% of the total respondent

countries) indicated that they follow the United Nations Fundamental Principles of Official

Statistics, while 13 countries20 which are majority from the member states of African Union

indicated that they followed the African Charter on Statistics. Eight countries indicated that

they followed specific national standards as well, namely Bangladesh (i.e., as per national

demand when indicators appear), Cameroon (i.e., National Statistics Law; the Code of Good

Practice in the Production of Official Statistics; the Manual of Concepts and Definitions Used

in the Official Statistics of Cameroon; the Investigations Dictionary; the National Quality

Assurance Framework (in preparation)), Cote (no explanation), Libya (no explanation),

Pakistan (no explanation), Palestine (i.e., Code of Practice for Palestine’s Official Statistics),

Tunisia (no explanation) and Uganda (no explanation).

In order to learn country interest in the peer review process, a question on whether the country

would like to be engaged in the peer review process was asked at the end of the survey. 79%

of the total respondent countries (26 countries21) showed their interest to be engaged in the

peer review process as either to be a reviewer, reviewee or both; while another 21% of the

total respondent countries (7 countries) did not want to be engaged in the peer review process.

This is due to several reasons as follows:

1. Security and lack of funds.

2. Ongoing reorganization/restructuring of the institution and departments.

19 UN Fundamental Principles (31): Afghanistan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Cameroon, Chad, Cote, Egypt,

Gabon, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Malaysia, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan,

Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Turkey, Togo, UAE and Uganda 20 African Charter on Statistics (13): Benin, Cameroon, Chad, Cote, Egypt, Gabon, Libya, Mozambique, Niger,

Sudan, Tunisia, Togo and Uganda 21 Countries want to be engaged in peer review process (26): Albania, Bangladesh, Benin, Brunei, Cameroon,

Chad, Cote d’Ivoire, Egypt, Gabon, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Malaysia, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, Oman,

Pakistan, Palestine, Sudan, Tunisia, Turkey, Togo, Uganda and Yemen.

2

2

3

4

8

13

31

ASEAN Charter on Statistics

Other Statistical Standards

Code of Practice for the ENP South countries

European Statistics Code of Practice

Specific National Standards

African Charter on Statistics

United Nations Fundamental Principles

statistics@sesric.org 14

3. Recent experience in conducting/implementing peer review in the institution.

4. Priority is given to the implementation of NSDS.

5. Priorities are given to the internal structure reformation, capacity building and the

completion of the activation of new organizational structure and reconstruction of the

national statistical system.

Figure 7 shows the number of countries who want to be engaged in peer review process either

being a reviewer, reviewee or both.

Figure 7. Countries’ Interests to be Part of the Peer Review Process/Project22

7. Planned Activities

a. SESRIC will work together with all relevant national, regional, international and

supranational stakeholders for the implementation of peer reviews of NSOs of OIC

countries and supported the proposal of a multilateral agreement among SESRIC,

Eurostat, PARIS21 and AUC for determining the cooperation modalities among them

concerning the OIC-Peer Programme to support the countries in their common scope

of work.

b. SESRIC will participate in peer reviews as an observer and/or partner institution

through incorporating the know-how and experience gained by the relevant

stakeholders.

c. SESRIC, as being the main information bank of OIC and the secretariat of OIC-

StatCom, will host an Online Repository of Peer Review Documents with proper

intellectual property acknowledgements and requested relevant stakeholders to share

the related documents with SESRIC.

d. The received experts nominated by the NSOs will be entered into SESRIC ROSE

system.

22 Reviewer (8): Bangladesh, Chad, Cote d'Ivoire, Iran, Malaysia, Niger, Tunisia and Turkey.

Reviewee (6): Albania, Benin, Brunei, Mozambique, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Togo.

Both (12): Cameroon, Egypt, Gabon, Indonesia, Iraq, Libya, Nigeria, Oman, Palestine, Sudan, Uganda and

Yemen.

Both, 12, 44%

Reviewer, 8, 30%

Reviewee, 7, 26%

statistics@sesric.org 15

ANNEX 1: Recommendations - Expert Group Meeting (EGM) on Peer Reviews for

National Statistical Offices (NSOs) of OIC Member Countries (OIC-Peer) on 3

November 2016 held in Konya, Republic of Turkey

Expert Group Meeting (EGM) on Peer Reviews for National Statistical

Offices (NSOs) of OIC Member Countries (OIC-Peer)

3 November 2016, Konya – Turkey

RECOMMENDATIONS

Expressing their thanks to the Statistical, Economic and Social Research and Training Centre

for Islamic Countries (SESRIC) for the support in organising the Expert Group Meeting

(EGM) on Peer Reviews for National Statistical Offices (NSOs) of OIC Member Countries

(OIC-Peer) which was held on 3 November 2016 in Konya, Republic of Turkey with the

participation of delegates from Eurostat, Paris21 (virtual), and 14 OIC Member Countries

including, Albania, Azerbaijan, Benin, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Niger, Pakistan,

Palestine, Qatar, Tajikistan, Turkey, and Uganda, and acknowledging with appreciation the

presentations and deliberations by all speakers, the participants of the EGM have agreed on

the following recommendations to the consideration of the Sixth Session of the Statistical

Commission of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC-StatCom) to be held on 5-6

November 2016 in Konya, Republic of Turkey:

1. Emphasizes the need for enhancing the credibility of the NSOs and for strengthening

the capacity of National Statistical Systems (NSSs) of OIC member countries in

addressing the challenges posed by the Post-2015 Development Agenda,

2. Affirms the dire need to depict the current situation of the NSSs of the OIC member

countries and to assess the compliance status to the international codes and standards,

3. Welcomes the SESRIC Project on OIC-Peer which will be a good example to

strengthen South-South and Triangular Cooperation towards identifying the strengths

and weaknesses of NSOs of OIC member countries,

4. Supports the proposal of composing a volunteering Technical Team from OIC

member countries with an experience on monitoring and evaluation mechanism to

share their experience with SESRIC,

5. Thanks SESRIC for taking the initiative to prepare the Draft OIC-Peer Review

Inclination Survey (OPRIS) and urges the Technical Team to ameliorate the content

and structure of OPRIS in light of their experiences in collaboration with Eurostat and

Paris21 (tbc),

statistics@sesric.org 16

6. Requests SESRIC to circulate the OPRIS to all OIC member countries and

underlines the importance of the timely completion of the OPRIS by member

countries in accordance with the project timeline,

7. Calls on the Technical Team to suggest the most appropriate underlying

criteria/benchmarks based on which the compliance of the OIC member countries

volunteering for the Peer Review will be assessed, and to provide the concrete

rationale behind their proposal,

8. Invites the NSOs of the OIC Member Countries to volunteer for being candidates as

reviewer and reviewee under the OIC-Peer project.

statistics@sesric.org 17

ANNEX 2: Recommendations - Workshop on Peer Review Mechanism for National

Statistical Offices (NSOs) of OIC Member Countries) on 19-20 December 2017 held in

Ankara, Republic of Turkey

Workshop on

Peer Review Mechanisms for National Statistical Offices (NSOs) of OIC

Member Countries

19-20 December 2017, Ankara – Turkey

RECOMMENDATIONS

Expressing their thanks to the Statistical, Economic and Social Research and Training Centre

for Islamic Countries (SESRIC) for the support in organising the Workshop on Peer Review

Mechanisms for National Statistical Offices (NSOs) in OIC Member Countries which

was held on 19-20 December 2017 in Ankara, Republic of Turkey with the participation of

delegates from 25 OIC countries including Afghanistan, Albania, Bangladesh, Cameroon,

Chad, Cote d’Ivoire, Egypt, Gabon, Gambia, Iran, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan,

Malaysia, Morocco, Mozambique, Niger, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Tunisia, Turkey,

Uganda and Uzbekistan, and international and supranational organisations including Eurostat,

PARIS21 and African Union Commission (AUC), the Workshop participants have agreed on

the following recommendations:

1. Extended their sincere thanks to SESRIC for the warm hospitality and Albania,

Cameroon, Egypt, Iran, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Malaysia, Mozambique,

Niger, Palestine, Senegal, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Uzbekistan, Eurostat, PARIS21

and AUC for their enlightening presentations;

2. Expressed their support to and willingness to be involved in the OIC-Peer Programme

aiming to enhance the credibility of the NSOs and to strengthen the capacity of

National Statistical Systems (NSSs) of OIC countries towards addressing the

challenges posed by regional and global agenda;

3. Commended the efforts of SESRIC for the design and circulation of the OIC-Peer

Review Inclination Survey (OPRIS) (available on www.sesric.org/activities-

announcements-detail.php?id=404), appreciated the progress report of OPRIS and

called the NSOs of OIC countries which have not responded to the survey to submit

the completed survey to SESRIC;

4. Welcomed the readiness of SESRIC to work together with all relevant national,

regional, international and supranational stakeholders for the implementation of peer

reviews of NSOs of OIC countries and supported the proposal of a multilateral

agreement among SESRIC, Eurostat, PARIS21 and AUC for determining the

statistics@sesric.org 18

cooperation modalities among them concerning the OIC-Peer Programme to support

the countries in their common scope of work;

5. Encouraged SESRIC to participate in peer reviews as an observer and/or partner

institution through incorporating the know-how and experience gained by the relevant

stakeholders;

6. Suggested SESRIC, as being the main information bank of OIC and the secretariat of

OIC-StatCom, to host an Online Repository of Peer Review Documents with proper

intellectual property acknowledgements and requested relevant stakeholders to share

the related documents with SESRIC;

7. Requested SESRIC to ameliorate the features of Roster of Statistics Experts (ROSE)

(available on www.sesric.org/rose.php) in order to gather a pool of eminent experts

that will be candidates for the teams of OIC-Peer Programme and in this regard called

the NSOs of the OIC countries to propose qualified candidates; and

8. Encouraged the NSOs of the OIC member countries to volunteer in and to raise

awareness about the OIC- Peer Programme.